In the United States v. Miller case of 1907, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in California. The federal government had granted a large tract of land to Southern Pacific Railroad Company for building railway lines under an act passed by Congress in 1866. However, this grant was subject to any existing valid rights and claims at that time. A man named Miller claimed he had already acquired part of this land before it was given to the railroad company through preemption rights - a legal principle allowing individuals who first develop or inhabit an area to acquire title over it from public lands. The court held that although Miller did settle on and improve the property prior to its grant, he failed to fulfill all requirements necessary for establishing preemption right as per law because he didn't file his claim within three months after making improvements as required by statute then in force (Act of March 3rd, 1853). Therefore, his claim could not be considered 'valid' when the congressional grant took effect and hence does not fall under exceptions mentioned therein. Thus, ruling against Mr.Miller's favor; Justice Brewer delivered opinion stating "the mere settlement upon and improvement of public lands without more gives no vested right against Government or its grantees."

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Miller, Justice Harlan argued that the federal government did not have jurisdiction over this case because it involved a purely private dispute between two individuals in different states. He contended that there was no constitutional basis for Congress to regulate insurance contracts under its power to control interstate commerce, as these were essentially local transactions and did not directly affect trade among states. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court decisions on similar issues and believed they had misapplied those precedents in reaching their conclusion. In his view, allowing federal intervention in such matters would unduly expand the powers of national government at the expense of state sovereignty.